2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

[frigidweirdo]

I can find no description of the type of weapon a militia can have either and remember, the 'militia' encompasses all American citizens. There should be no restrictions at all. Besides even a Musket today can put a hole in you.

So, nukes can be used by a military. You want people with nukes.

How comfortable would you be flying with a KKKer having a SAM missile?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ok, so machine guns, artillery and the like are not to be regulated.

How many INDIVIDUALS have artillery in the US military?

None, because artillery requires more than one person to operate.

Machine guns potentially.

But this is ownership. Not necessarily the ability to walk into a shopping mall, or walk down the street with them.

Like in Switzerland where you can own such a thing for the militia, but must keep it locked up.

 

[Rumpole]

Except for the fact that I proved that the Founding Fathers used the term "bear arms" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service".

But you dismissed it without even looking because.... because you're an idiot who wants something to be true and will ignore ALL FACTS that get in the way.

So you can **** off.

Yes — historically, the phrase “bear arms” overwhelmingly carried a military meaning, especially in the 17th–18th centuries. Corpus‑based linguistic research shows this very clearly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Tell us:
What did the people who wrote debated and ratified the Bill of Rights mean by "shall not be infringed"?
What restrictions on the possession and use firearms did they intend the 2nd Amendment to allow?
Prove your claims to be true.

What did they mean by "shall not be infringed", means, basically that the government shall not take guns away from people BEFORE DUE PROCESS.

That you're talking about what they intended, and yet you IGNORE what the Founding Fathers wrote, it absolutely ******* hilarious.

You make one argument that requires the thinking of the Founding Fathers, then the next minutes you're ridiculing what the Founding Fathers said.

You people are so shallow.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes — historically, the phrase “bear arms” overwhelmingly carried a military meaning, especially in the 17th–18th centuries. Corpus‑based linguistic research shows this very clearly.

Yes, I've shown this with the Founding Fathers talking about the 2A, George Washington and the different versions of what would be the 2A, and the Dick Act of 1903.

But they just go "it's inconvenient for me, so I'm ignoring it." Check out my previous post for how ******* dumb someone can be.

 

[westwall]

How many INDIVIDUALS have artillery in the US military?

None, because artillery requires more than one person to operate.

Machine guns potentially.

But this is ownership. Not necessarily the ability to walk into a shopping mall, or walk down the street with them.

Like in Switzerland where you can own such a thing for the militia, but must keep it locked up.

That doesn't matter in the slightest. By your own admission anything usable by a military unit shall not be infringed.

I agree.

 

[westwall]

I'll accept that people have a constitutional right to own firearms. What the Second Amendment does not do is clearly define the scope of that right, and I think a modern amendment should. Fundamental questions about what weapons are protected, what regulations are permissible, and where the limits lie should not be left to the shifting interpretations of right- or left-leaning courts.

For that reason, I believe Bruen was wrongly decided and should be overturned. I also believe Heller rests on questionable historical interpretations. It should either be revisited and corrected or, if necessary, overturned outright. Constitutional rights should be governed by clear constitutional language, not by competing historical narratives filtered through the preferences of whichever judges happen to be on the bench.

Sure it does. "That which is not EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN" is not controlled.

That's how our country works.

 

[westwall]

then explain to me why a number of court rulings are to that very point?

You mean the rulings now being overturned?

 

[Dante]

If 'The People' were not allowed to bear arms, a militia would not be possible. Remember, a militia is not part of a regular army

United States militias are officially organized by both federal and state governments under the constitutional Militia Clauses. While Congress dictates the overarching rules for arming and training, the states are responsible for organizing the units and appointing officers.

By law, the United States militia (defined in 10 USC Ch. 12) is divided into two primary categories

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/

 

[frigidweirdo]

That doesn't matter in the slightest. By your own admission anything usable by a military unit shall not be infringed.

I agree.

No, that's not what I said.

An individual can own typically individual arms used by the militia. Which is basically guns.

It's super vague, so at any point someone could make it mean this or that. However no government is going to allow people to own artillery. It just doesn't make any sense.

The militia provides the artillery. And anyway, in the event of a coup, people will find ways of getting military hardware anyway.

 

[westwall]

No, that's not what I said.

An individual can own typically individual arms used by the militia. Which is basically guns.

It's super vague, so at any point someone could make it mean this or that. However no government is going to allow people to own artillery. It just doesn't make any sense.

The militia provides the artillery. And anyway, in the event of a coup, people will find ways of getting military hardware anyway.

Yes, militia units used everything up to horse artillery. The equivalent of a tank today.

Individual ship captains armed their vessels with the largest cannon their ships could support, one of them was powerfully enough armed to earn the rating of a frigate, the primary ships used to show the flags around the world.

 

[westwall]

United States militias are officially organized by both federal and state governments under the constitutional Militia Clauses. While Congress dictates the overarching rules for arming and training, the states are responsible for organizing the units and appointing officers.

By law, the United States militia (defined in 10 USC Ch. 12) is divided into two primary categories

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/

And?

 

[Leo123]

United States militias are officially organized by both federal and state governments under the constitutional Militia Clauses. While Congress dictates the overarching rules for arming and training, the states are responsible for organizing the units and appointing officers.

By law, the United States militia (defined in 10 USC Ch. 12) is divided into two primary categories

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C16-1/ALDE_00013673/

What is that supposed to prove about owning firearms?

 

[westwall]

What is that supposed to prove about owning firearms?

Dainty doesn't know. She just throws crap at the wall hoping something sticks.

 

[Leo123]

Dainty doesn't know. She just throws crap at the wall hoping something sticks.

Well, she certainly is dumber than a stick. Apparently, she thinks the militia should be unarmed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, militia units used everything up to horse artillery. The equivalent of a tank today.

Individual ship captains armed their vessels with the largest cannon their ships could support, one of them was powerfully enough armed to earn the rating of a frigate, the primary ships used to show the flags around the world.

Well, the point here is what there is a RIGHT TO.

Even if a rich person had artillery, which you still haven't bothered to prove, that doesn't mean they have a right to it. You can have a TV, doesn't mean you have a right to the TV, just means you can have it by law.

So, are you going to go and try and prove there's a right to artillery? **** no you're not. You'll just bang on about it, never prove it, state you have proven it at some point, and then insult. Rinse and repeat.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dainty doesn't know. She just throws crap at the wall hoping something sticks.

Well, you're the expert at it, so you should know.

 

[westwall]

Well, you're the expert at it, so you should know.

I certainly know more about the subject than you ever will, sport.

 

[westwall]

Well, the point here is what there is a RIGHT TO.

Even if a rich person had artillery, which you still haven't bothered to prove, that doesn't mean they have a right to it. You can have a TV, doesn't mean you have a right to the TV, just means you can have it by law.

So, are you going to go and try and prove there's a right to artillery? **** no you're not. You'll just bang on about it, never prove it, state you have proven it at some point, and then insult. Rinse and repeat.

You silly person, every argument you make reinforces mine.

At the time the COTUS and Bill or Rights were written there was no Army. There was no Navy. There were wealthy INDIVIDUALS who equipped their ships, and their people with arms, and artillery.

That's an inconvenient fact for you. Today there are people all over the country who own tanks. Most are sans active cannon, but not all.

The reality is you have to be pretty well off to afford them, but we can have them.

Annoying to people like you, but we still have them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I certainly know more about the subject than you ever will, sport.

Yep, you know more about the subject of throwing crap at the wall and hoping it sticks than I am. At least we agree on that.